C

hinese President Xi Jinping urged Brazil to work closely with China to safeguard the shared interests of the Global South and uphold the central role of the United Nations, China’s state news agency Xinhua reported on Friday.

Speaking during a telephone call with Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva, Xi said China and Brazil are “constructive forces” in promoting world peace and improving global governance, according to Xinhua.

He emphasized the importance of cooperation between major developing nations at a time of shifting global power dynamics.

Xi reiterated China’s long-standing position on strengthening ties with Latin American and Caribbean countries, saying Beijing is willing to remain “a good friend and partner” to the region.

He added that China aims to advance the building of a China–Latin America community with a shared future.

Belt and Road cooperation highlighted

Xi pointed to a 2024 strategic partnership between China and Brazil that aligns Beijing’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) with Brazil’s development plans, including agriculture, infrastructure, and the energy transition.

The partnership, Xi said, reflects solidarity and cooperation among Global South countries.

At a Group of 20 meeting in 2024, Xi unveiled BRI-related measures alongside science and technology initiatives designed to support Global South development, according to Xinhua.

The conversation comes amid heightened concern in Latin America following the U.S. seizure of Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro on narcotics charges, an action that has fueled regional fears of foreign intervention.

The United Nations has criticized the U.S. operation, raising questions about its legality under international law.

(Source: Reuters)

B

razilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva has ignited a debate by describing the ongoing Israeli attacks on Gaza as “genocide,” drawing comparisons to the Holocaust perpetrated by Hitler. The statement was made during his presence at an African Union summit in Addis Ababa.

According to Brazil’s Canal Gov channel, Lula da Silva stated, “What’s happening in the Gaza Strip isn’t a war, it’s a genocide,” emphasizing the severity of the situation for the Palestinian people. He drew parallels with historical atrocities, stating, “Actually, it has happened: when Hitler decided to kill the Jews.”

The remarks prompted strong reactions from Israel, with Foreign Minister Israel Katz calling the statements “shameful” and “serious.” In response, Tel Aviv announced the summoning of the Brazilian ambassador for an official protest on Monday.

“A red line”

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu condemned Lula da Silva’s comments, asserting that the Brazilian president “crossed a red line.” Netanyahu characterized the words as an attempt to “trivialize the Holocaust” and undermine Israel’s right to self-defense.

The Israeli-Palestinian conflict has been escalating since an October 7 Hamas attack, leading to extensive Israeli airstrikes on Gaza. The UN reports widespread humanitarian issues, with nearly 29,000 Palestinians killed and a significant portion of the territory’s population facing internal displacement and shortages of essential resources.

Israel faces accusations of genocide at the International Court of Justice, and an interim ruling in January mandated Tel Aviv to cease genocidal acts and ensure the provision of humanitarian assistance to civilians in Gaza. The latest remarks by President Lula da Silva add fuel to the already tense diplomatic situation surrounding the conflict.

Natanyahu: “disgraceful and grave”

Israeli Foreign Minister Israel Katz announced his intention to summon Brazil’s ambassador for a reprimand in response to President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva’s remarks. Katz emphasized Israel’s unwavering commitment to its right to defend itself. The summoning of the ambassador is scheduled for Monday.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu condemned Lula da Silva’s comments, describing them as “disgraceful and grave.” Netanyahu asserted that likening Israel to the Nazis and Hitler is a trivialization of the Holocaust and an attempt to undermine the Jewish people’s right to self-defense.

Source: Anadolu Agency

Rather than a “New Cold War,” we are now witnessing the culmination of an economic war with Russia, where the financial, energy, and capital markets are the battlegrounds. In his timely book, Economic War: Ukraine and the Global Conflict between Russia and the West, political risk analyst and consultant Maximilian Hess takes the reader through the period in which the seeds of economic warfare are sprouting into full bloom: from the initial invasion of Ukraine in 2014 to Russia’s full-scale invasion in 2022 and beyond.  

The book skillfully delves into various economic fronts around the world, demonstrating the weaponization of economic tools such as pipelines, mining, credit, and cryptocurrencies. Each chapter unfolds like a chess game between Russia and the West, allowing the reader to map the moves of the contestants both chronologically and regionally, including Russia’s response to Western sanctions and what is at stake for each party.

There were a number of disputes in the early and mid-2000s between Russia and Ukraine over gas supplies and the terms thereof that led Russia to cut off deliveries and precipitated gas supply crunches in the wider European market. What I think people forget is that Nordstream 2 and Nordstream 1 were never intended to increase the total amount of Russian gas that could be pumped to Central Europe.

Instead, they were designed to ensure that Russia didn’t have to do it through Eastern Europe, in particular through Ukraine, so that Russia could then increase the leverage of its gas policy over Ukraine. We should have understood this risk at the time of Nordstream 2, because it was essentially designed to give Russia the same kind of leverage over other Eastern European states that it had gained over Ukraine.

Q. Why do you think Putin choose to invade Ukraine specifically in February 2022?

I think he thought it was an important time economically, when the West was weak and divided. He hoped that the sanctions response and the economic response would be less intense than it might have been at another time. Thinking in terms of change in 2020 and 2021, the end of the Trump administration and then the Biden administration that follows made it clear that there would be a concerted sanctions strategy.

He hoped that European unity would be weak and insufficient to resist him. Inflationary pressures from COVID-19 had already increased, and Russia had already begun to cut off its gas supplies to Europe. At the same time, he was preparing his troops to invade Ukraine and saw it as a moment when the West would be relatively weak economically and relatively vulnerable. Therefore, less likely to act against him and less likely to act in support of Ukraine. Which, of course, turned out to be a very big strategic miscalculation on his part.

Q. Has Russia’s strategy of crippling Europe with gas cuts failed?

Largely, I think it has failed. Not because of any failure within the strategy itself but because of collaborative actions on the part of the West. Intelligence was shared by the United States, by officials who had spoken on the record and had reached the assessment that there was a small chance that Russia wouldn’t invade Ukraine in October 2021, simply the brutal nature of Russia’s onslaught in February, and the fact that the Europeans saw an army of the largest form that had taken this action in Europe since World War II, made it clear to many European leaders that they had no other choice.

Putin was preparing, and did prepare, for a scenario in which Europe was fully on board with the sanctions regime through Russia’s fortress balance sheet strategy, the Kremlin’s process of building up large reserves of ‘hard currencies’ and gold. But now that the initial pain of that gas strategy is being felt, and inflation has been at such high levels for a year and a half. There are obviously still many politicians, particularly in Europe, such as former French President Nicolas Sarkozy, who are calling for a softer approach to Russia on these issues. That’s why Putin’s strategy is not one that is over; by threatening more economic pain, he can also undermine support for Ukraine in the long term. Global gas markets are much more fragile, and we could still see a new spike in gas prices this winter as a result of the Kremlin’s actions.

Q. Did Putin pull out of the Black Sea grain deal in an attempt to revive the inflation weapon?

I believe very strongly that this is what he is trying to do. It also gives him the tool of offering grain to African countries to gain more support there. I think we should be prepared for more actions by the Kremlin to deliberately try to stir up inflationary pressures, possibly trying to find a way to drive up prices, as well. The Kremlin really has only one major option, which is to threaten an export embargo and actually take action to make it look credible. That option is difficult because Russia’s budget is now so skewed toward the military.

T

he global agenda is concerned with the enlargement of BRICS, a non-formal economic organization consisting of Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa. Though the group does not have an official status, it functions as an international organization and accepts or rejects memberships of applicant countries.

In August, South African President Cyril Ramaphosa announced at the 15th BRICS Summit that Iran, Argentina, Egypt, Ethiopia, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates had been invited to join the bloc and the membership will take effect on January 1, 2024.

Aside from new members, 16 countries have formally applied to join BRICS while 16 others, including Turkey, have shown interest in the group. The increasing amount of interest attests to the popularity of the bloc, which attracts countries mainly from the Global South. With new members, BRICS will represent 46% of the global population, 29.3% of global GDP, 43.1% of global oil production, and 25.1% of global exports.

Why do countries want to join BRICS?

There are several reasons why the BRICS are attractive to certain countries. First, current members, future members, and other applicants are non-members of the Western bloc and generally disadvantaged against the U.S. and the EU in many respects. Among many such countries, there is a general understanding that the West tries to maximize its economic and political power and interests on account of the rest of the world. What is more, the maximization policies of the West are considered unfair and often morally questionable actions. Therefore, BRICS-like groupings are seen as a way to resist the destructive dominance of Western economies, best summed up perhaps by the phrase “United we stand.”

Western economic cooperation and organizations may be damaging to the BRICS economies, but they also inspire them to counter them. Indeed, the model of economic cooperation, namely the EU, introduced by the transatlantic alliance worked well after World War II, enriching Europeans. Thus, BRICS members are following Europe’s path to strengthen their economies; BRICS is an organization that both imitates Western institutions and counters them.

New members are not aligned to any bloc, making BRICS the only economic body they can approach. It is quite unlikely that Ethiopia, Argentina, or any Middle Eastern country will one day become an EU member—their best choice for economic cooperation is to be a member of BRICS.

Middle Eastern countries, particularly, tried their best to align with U.S. interests but were disappointed with Washignton’s policies towards them. No Middle Eastern country is willing to be satisfied with allying with the U.S., for example, against Iran and Israel. The example here is political, but politics affect economic relations and alliances. Moreover, new members and BRICS enthusiasts are ideologically closer to BRICS members than the West.

Will Turkey join the BRICS?

As for Turkey, being a BRICS member will bring economic benefits to the country. However, for all countries, including Turkey, economic alliances have political repercussions and are mostly formed according to countries’ political postures. As BRICS is an unofficial union formed by big powers of the Global South, Turkey’s membership would have the greatest consequences compared to any other membership.

To begin with, Turkey sees itself as a European country. While a small part of its territory is on the European continent, it has historical and political ties with Europe and has always turned its face to the West. The secular community which founded the country in 1923 distanced itself from the East (and South) arguing that Turkey should be in the Western bloc.

On the other hand, Turkey’s conservative democratic community, which now governs the country, is not fully aligned with the West nor is it anti-Western. In fact, it would welcome EU membership more than any other economic grouping. Currently, even though Ankara no longer maintains a full allegiance to the West and relations are not at a desired level with the U.S. and the EU, the incumbent government still wants to keep strong ties with both.

At the moment, Ankara prefers not to part ways with Western powers and, concurrently, improves relations with the rest of the world. While it tries to remain neutral in world politics on account of its NATO membership and EU candidacy, it does not want to change its axis completely. Turkey’s balancing policy can be tied to its “Century of Turkey” motto, referring to an independent foreign policy, which is more assertive and gives priority to the country’s own interests. Besides Turkey’s new foreign policy, being estranged by its Western allies compels Turkey to seek new cooperation opportunities. BRICS is not a political bloc and being a BRICS member does not mean an axis change. Yet, being a BRICS member does have political consequences.

In the current circumstances, the Turkish government will most likely opt for improving economic cooperation with each BRICS member rather than becoming a member of the organization. Relations with the BRICS bloc will continue informally and without formal membership.

In addition to Turkey’s orientation towards the West, certain structural problems of BRICS also compel Ankara not to join. First, although China appears to be leading the bloc, its leadership is weak and other members may not accept a more influential member joining the bloc. It is also questionable to what extent members will unite against rivals such as the EU. While Western countries act as a bloc in their economic and foreign relations, this may not be the case for BRICS members.

Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, and Egypt, for example, will join BRICS for the economic benefits and thus have a sort of backing against Western powers. Russia and China are already challenging the West, while the West is relentlessly trying to pull India out of the group and may sooner or later succeed.

BRICS may not offer Turkey what it expects. The only reason Turkey might apply to join BRICS is as a result of deteriorating relations with Western states. Turkey’s relations with the West are strained, but not bad enough to force the country to go down that road.

W

e are at a historic turning point in terms of the power struggle in the international political system. The two devastating World Wars and the Cold War were major turning points in the twentieth century; however, in terms of shaking the power of “Western supremacy,” a very important undercurrent in the development of global politics, these developments did not have a significant impact.

World War I was largely a war between Western powers, and in its aftermath, the military and economic supremacy of the West continued to grow. World War II was also largely fought between Western powers and ended in the defeat of the challengers. Russia, one of the traditional European powers, challenged the United States and Western Europe under the Soviet regime during the Cold War, which also ended in defeat. It is generally accepted the current challenge to Western supremacy is a development that needs to be taken more seriously in terms of ending nearly 250 years of Western dominance.

If we look at where this challenge is coming from, Asia is clearly at the forefront, but Latin America and Africa have also raised objections to a global political system that reflects Western domination, albeit not as strongly. Let us examine the place of the BRICS, which brings together actors from these three continents, in the U.S.- and European-led international system; their challenge to this system; and the disadvantages they face in doing so.

Indicators of economic dominance

The first step in understanding the scale of the BRICS challenge should be a comparison of their positions in the global economy with those of the U.S. and the EU. In GDP terms, according to purchasing power parity (PPP), the main indicator of economic power, BRICS is the world’s largest economic bloc and one of its members, China, is the world’s largest economy.

The fact that by 2020 the five members of BRICS have reached a GDP (in PPP terms) larger than that of the United States and the 27-member-strong European Union combined shows that the organization has reached the capacity to have a serious impact on the future of the global economic and political system. There are now frequent reports that the BRICS members’ efforts to counter the United States’ increasing use of the dollar and the SWIFT system as a weapon could undermine the dollar’s position. Among the issues to be discussed at the BRICS summit in South Africa in August is the creation of a BRICS currency to counter the dominance of the dollar.

Brazil’s GDP, which stood at $2.47 trillion in 2013 when the instability began, shrank almost every year, falling to $1.48 trillion in 2020. Given that the domestic instability caused by social and political polarization and income distribution problems in the country has created an environment open to interference and manipulation by external actors dissatisfied with Brazil’s foreign policy line, it is clear that Lula da Silva, who will resume the presidency in January 2023, will have to tread more carefully in the global power struggle.

In addition to these weaknesses, another handicap of the BRICS countries in challenging the Western-dominated global political and economic system is that their military capabilities still lag far behind those of the United States and its allies. Although three of the five BRICS members possess nuclear weapons, the BRICS countries are not comparable to the United States in terms of military spending.

World history is full of examples showing that military power is as important as economic power in determining the fate of global challenges. The challenge to Russia’s military capabilities in Ukraine serves as the most recent example of this.

S

ince the dawn of 21^st century, the world has been witnessing a shift in the global power balance, with the rise of new economic and political powers. One of the most notable examples of this shift is the emergence of the BRICS countries (Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa) as a major powerful inter-regional bloc on the world stage. This group of countries, which represents some of the fastest-growing economies in the world, has been working together to promote a multipolar world order and to challenge the dominance of traditional Western powers.

Argentina and Saudi Arabia may soon join the BRICS group, which would strengthen the multipolar world order bloc, according to recent media rumours. Saudi Arabia has expressed interest in joining the BRICS nations, according to South African President Cyril Ramaphosa, who was in the Kingdom at the time. If this were to occur, the inclusion of these two nations would benefit the group and the entire world, politically and economically.

Saudi Arabia is an important regional and global player in world politics, and henceforth, its addition to BRICS will provide a significant economic and political influence to the group. For instance, Saudi Arabia’s membership will provide a valuable partner in the region to this group and would help promote stability in the Middle East. Moreover, Saudi Arabia is also a major player in the global petrochemical industry, with a production capacity of more than 70 million tons/year. Saudi Arabia’s admission to BRICS would provide its members with a reliable partner in the energy sector and would help promote stability in the global oil market.

On the contrary, Argentina’s membership would bring valuable economic benefits to the group and would help promote trade and investment between BRICS and Latin America. According to IMF and World Bank records, the Argentina’s GDP is $406.2 billion, which makes it the 23rd largest economy in the world.

In addition, Argentina has a strong manufacturing sector, predominantly in the aerospace and automotive industries. Argentina’s membership in BRICS would grant the other members entry into these industries and help stimulate cooperation in the field of manufacturing.

Despite both Argentina and Saudi Arabia facing economic challenges in the past few years,  joining BRICS could provide them with new opportunities to access new markets, and to boost development and economic growth.

For instance, in the case of Saudi Arabia, joining the BRICS group would provide it with new opportunities for investment and trade, which would help to diversify its economy and reduce its dependence on oil exports. Saudi Arabia’s addition to BRICS is particularly quintessential from the standpoint of the ongoing shift towards renewable energy sources, which is likely to lead to a decline in demand for oil in the coming years. As a matter of fact, Saudi Arabia’s inclusion in BRICS would give it access to new technologies and expertise, which would be crucial for its efforts to diversify its economy and create new jobs.

Similarly, in the wake of the ongoing economic crisis in Argentina, joining BRICS would provide it with new opportunities for trade and investment, which would help to stimulate its economy and create new jobs. The ongoing economic crisis in Argentina, which has been characterized by high inflation, a large fiscal deficit, and a large trade deficit, makes the BRICS group a new opportunity for the country. Joining BRICS would provide Argentina with access to new technologies and expertise, which would be crucial for its efforts to modernize its economy and create new jobs.

From the geopolitical and geo-economic standpoint, the BRICS countries have been working to establish a more unbiassed and impartial world order for years, and the inclusion of Saudi Arabia and Argentina in the group would further strengthen these efforts. The BRICS group as an economic bloc have been working on diverse proposals to promote this multipolar world order. For instance, the creation of the New Development Bank and the Contingent Reserve Arrangement, which is designed to provide alternative sources of finance for developing countries, is a key BRICS initiative. The inclusion of Saudi Arabia and Argentina in the group would further strengthen these initiatives and provide more resources and support to these efforts.

Likewise, from the strategic standpoint, the inclusion of Saudi Arabia and Argentina in BRICS would promote regional stability and cooperation at the global stage. Saudi Arabia and Argentina are key regional players and their membership would bring valuable regional expertise and provide a valuable partner to the BRICS countries in these regions.

To conclude, the possible inclusion of Saudi Arabia and Argentina to the BRICS would bring significant economic, political, and social benefits. The addition of two regional powers to BRICS would further advance the influence of this bloc in particular regions. Their inclusion would strengthen the multipolar world order, provide new opportunities for growth and development, disseminate regional stability and cooperation, and strengthen cultural and educational exchanges.

T

he Russian invasion of Ukraine not only led to a war between the two countries, but also brought about a discursive and value-laden struggle between western and eastern countries. The most recent developments indicate that the East-West axis in international relations entail costs on both sides. Political, military, and economic changes in the Middle East, the Caucasus, and the Balkans immensely affect the choices of regional actors’ foreign policies who have to choose between the policy options set before them by Russia, China, or the Western powers with the U.S. taking the lead among the latter.

Meanwhile, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey act in accordance with the realities of contemporary multipolar global politics. Turkey, for example, as a regional player successfully maintains political, military, and economic ties with multiple states, which occasionally have conflicting interests, and avoids a unilateral alignment in its foreign policy. Egypt and Saudi Arabia, two prominent powers in the Middle East, try to pursue their national interests almost independently of the great powers’ political, military, and economic agendas.

These three nations, which have lately undergone a degree of political normalization, may now be progressing towards the next level of cooperation within one of the most important groupings of emerging economies, namely BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa). In this regard, BRICS as one of the organizations of non-Western actors in the international political and economic system points to the weight of these actors in the international economic system.

Turkey’s mediator role

With the Russian invasion of Ukraine, Turkey took on a significant role on issues such as ceasefire talks between Russia and Ukraine, and the resolution of global/transboundary crises, combining historical diplomatic experience with the relevance of its geographical location. As an international actor in cooperation with international organizations and as part of its own foreign policy, Turkey maintained talks with both Russia and Ukraine. Turkish authorities brought the warring parties together in Turkey, and established the Grain Corridor Deal together with Russia, Ukraine, and the UN to tackle the regional and global food crisis.

It is worth highlighting that Turkey is both a NATO member and maintains ties with Russia, and could thus keep communication and diplomatic channels open. As the most trustable third party, Turkey garners the appreciation of both Russia and Ukraine, while after the Grain Corridor Deal, Turkish-Russian nuclear cooperation continues to develop as witnessed by the Akkuyu Nuclear Power Plant.

Saudi Arabia and Egypt are two regional powers that tread cautiously in the face of the Russian invasion of Ukraine, as well as other regional and international challenges. Egypt, for instance, while preserving ties with the United States, cooperates with Russia on nuclear issues.

Egypt condemned the Russian invasion of Ukraine at the UN General Assembly but did not entirely oppose Russia and tries to sustain a balanced policy. On the one hand, Egypt historically needs the West’s political backing, especially in terms of political legitimacy and foreign aid, but, on the other, the high number of Ukrainian tourists visiting Egypt and the substantial amount of grain imported from Russia required it to pursue a more balanced approach toward the conflict.

The balanced approach of Saudi Arabia

Although today’s international relations have a multipolar structure, the Russian invasion of Ukraine again triggered and revealed an East-West struggle. At this point, similar to Turkey and Egypt, Saudi Arabia follows a neutral and balanced approach in this regard. Saudi Arabia, like other Gulf states, pursues a balanced policy not only in opposing Russia’s invasion but also with regards to the East-West axis. Saudi Arabia is improving its military and diplomatic ties with China and Russia, has been in talks with Russia for the procurement of Russian military hardware, and has signed a defense cooperation agreement with Russia. The kingdom is also cooperating with China on ballistic missile development on Saudi soil.

At the Jeddah Security and Development Summit 2022, attended by U.S. President Joe Biden who met with the leaders of the GCC states and Egypt, Jordan, and Iraq, the U.S. administration did not succeed in building a front against Russia, Iran, and China—the basic motivation behind Biden’s visit. This idea was politely overridden by several states that have close and interdependent political, military, and economic ties with Russia and China.

Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Egypt want to strengthen their ties with BRICS members, and this interest is not one-sided. According to Purnima Anand, a representative of the BRICS International Forum, these three states may join the BRICS countries soon.

What would the BRICS group bring to Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Egypt?

The three countries becoming members of the BRICS group would immediately be a vital turning point for them, the BRICS member-states, and the organization itself. Particularly in the Chinese media, it is claimed that the three countries’ participation would strengthen the organization’s discourse on global governance and a fairer international political and economic system. In addition, the GDP of Saudi Arabia and Turkey, each more than $800 billion, and Egypt’s GDP, which also exceeds $400 billion, would mean that BRICS would grow by almost $2 trillion, and its international economic potential and role would be tremendously augmented.

Along these lines, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan’s attendance of the 2018 BRICS meeting in South Africa’s capital had furthered discussion over the country’s membership—a discussion that occasionally pops up on the Turkish foreign policy agenda. The economic forum, which is comprised of five states with a combined GDP of $21–22 trillion and roughly half of the world’s population, is undeniably significant.

The relations that Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Egypt can develop with various economic organizations such as the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), the Southern Common Market (Mercosur), and the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) would help these states sustain their balance-oriented foreign policies within the framework of the East-West axis, and would also serve as a healthy bridge between the region and the West.